World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
No, members of an enemy's military are combatants regardless of whether they're holding a gun or in a firefight at the time. The only exception is personnel such as chaplains and medics.
How do you have less votes than the wrong person?
That's a warcrime
If you commit a war crime. That be a paddlin'.
This attack is a warcrime based on treaties that Israel has itself signed to, and has been recognized as such for decades.
Hmmm I guess with Israel having a conscript army then rocket barrages aren't acts of terrorism. If a large portion of the country is considered "combatants" then any non-coms can be written off as "acceptable collateral damage".
Not unless you're making a meaningful attempt to target combatants. "All civilians are combatants" is the kind of Nazi shite that Israel indulges in, so I'd thank you to not peddle such grotesque views.
I don't ascribe to it.
Then repeating things like this
in attempting to equate collateral damage with attacking civilians should probably be avoided.
It's pointing out the hypocrisy, that is all.
Would you like to more precisely outline the hypocrisy that is comparable in this case - between the targeting of combatants that results in collateral damage, and the assertion that attacking civilians with rocket barrages is valid because Israel has a 'conscript army', implicitly asserting that all Israeli civilians are legitimate targets?
The way israel will commit acts of terrorism because there may be hezbola, and civilian bystanders are "acceptable" because they are "targeting" hezbola, or Hamas. It is seen as "ok" by some because "Hamas or Hezbola". When Hamas or hezbola launch rockets into israel to "target" Israeli combatants, on the clock or off, those acts of terror are considered the worst thing, and it continues the circle of violence.
On the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks:
“(c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.”
https://www.justsecurity.org/81351/the-prohibition-on-indiscriminate-attacks-the-us-position-vs-the-dod-law-of-war-manual/
It’s important to note that this is the consensus of much of the international community and the US (and I presume its surrogate Israel) have not signed on to the above provision despite speaking to support it. The weasely approach we (the US) have taken to these standards really demonstrates how hollow our sentiments are when we feign moral authority in international affairs.
Would you like to explain how setting up bombs within the personal devices of enemy combatants is striking civilians or civilian objects without distinction? Or do you think all collateral damage is a war crime?
Like, fuck's sake, not every dogshit act by a criminal state like Israel is a war crime. Jesus H. Christ.
Was this really all just to say "US BAD" and "US PUPPET ISRAEL"? Holy shit.
First of all, there was no way for Israel to know whether the people they claim to be targeting were combatants when the attack occurred since Israel had no information about the status of these bombs when they chose to detonate them.
Secondly, placing a bomb in a common device that you have every reason to believe will spend much of its time in the proximity of civilians, in homes, markets and other public spaces, and choosing to detonate it without knowledge of the location of the bomb, or it’s proximity to your supposed target, is actively avoiding distinguishing between ‘combatants’ and civilians. I can’t believe that western brain rot requires this to be spelled out for it.
Israel learned that Hezbollah was ordering new pagers to be given to members of Hezbollah and no one else. Every member of Hezbollah is a sworn enemy of Israel. These pagers were to be used for secure communications between members of Hezbollah. It was highly likely that nearly every one of these pagers would be carried by members of Hezbollah at the time they went off (IIRC 3pm local time).
So it's your view that any explosive that isn't tracked at all times with 100% accuracy is a war crime.
Uh. 'Interesting'.
'Western brain rot', apparently, is when someone else disproves your utterly and blatantly incorrect claim about the definition of a war crime and then you flail around desperately seeking another justification for your claim once disproven. Okay.
This is terrorism and a violation of International humanitarian law. It's not a war crime because Lebanon and Israel are not formally at war; yet Israel just attacked civilians in public, including health workers, and even officials in Parliament.
As an attack on Hezbollah militant fighters, sure, fair game. But this didn't just attack them.
War crimes are not restricted to polities formally at war.
Unless there's some proof that Israel targeted civilians or was exceptionally lax in targeting combatants, this has no relevance as to whether what they did was a war crime.
Hezbollah is a paramilitary group. It's going to be a hard sell to any lawyer or judge that targeting their members is targeting noncombatants.
That's a very curious claim regarding international law on booby traps.
Sure, my point is that this is still terrorism and a violation of international humanitarian law. It's worth noting that Hezbollah members aren't just militant fighters. There are also social services and Parliamentary members, which are not combatants.
Edit: your linked Westpoint article is proving my point
See Quotes
The SS also included members that weren't 'militant fighters', running a vast economic, political, and charitable apparatus, but few would dispute that attacking members of the SS would be attacking members of a paramilitary organization and legitimate targets.
Every part of the SS was engaged in ethnic cleansing and genocide, even the medical corp. How are you comparing them to Hezbollah, which only exists out of resistance to Israel's ethnic cleansing of Lebanon?
You haven't made an argument for why they should not be considered non-conbatants
Only if you assume that all support for the institutions of the SS was in some indirect way ethnic cleansing and genocide.
Do I have to quote Hezbollah's extensive history of antisemitism and calls for ethnic cleansing of Israel?
I quite literally did.
No, I mean I can't find a single part of the SS that wasn't engaged in Ethnic Cleansing. Nor can I find any sources for 'non-militant' SS personnel being attacked, do you have a source for this? I can find of attacks on civilians, like the bombing of Dresden, that are war crimes. There is also the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, which does not distinguish any German causalities as 'non-militant,' however that situation is much more similar to Gaza's situation in relation to Israel than Israel's relation to Lebanon.
Hezbollah's ideology is both Anti-zionist and anti-judiaism, which Amal Saad-Ghorayeb can analyze and describe far better than I can.
Anti-Zionism and Israel (Chapter 7)
Anti-Judaism (Chapter 8)
You quite literally didn't, Protocol 1 is describing militant forces, not social workers, doctors, politicians, or their families.
Article 7(2) of Amended Protocol II, of which details are discussed here of which pagers, that include the use by health care workers, certainly apply, especially when detonated in civilian spaces.
See Quotes
Per Article 3:
(a) which is not on, or directed against, a military objective. In case of doubt as to whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used; or
(b) which employs a method or means of delivery which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
(c) which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
You also can't just consider all of Hezbollah to be combatants, things are not that simple. Not all of Hezbollah are militants, there are many social workers and politicians. And even if they were, there are zero guarantees that all the pagers ended up in the hands of Hezbollah members. And even if that was the case, detonating them in public spaces is still a violation of international humanitarian law. By it's nature this was a massive terrorism attack
18 U.S. Code § 2441 - War crimes
Prohibited conduct: “(D) Murder.— The act of a person who intentionally kills, or conspires or attempts to kill, or kills whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2441